July 29, 2005
I sat down to write about how North American Muslims are issuing a fatwa against terrorism
. It's about time, I say. The article states
Imam Yahya Hendi, the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University in Washington and a member of the Fiqh council, said: "We hear from our fellow Americans very often that Muslims have not spoken aggressively about terrorism, that Muslims have not made their voices very clear. I disagree. Muslims have made their voices very clear from day one. So maybe we needed to do more. The more you do, the more you realize you need to do."
Anyone who's ever read LGF knows that these Muslim voices have never been clear. Hmm, what does LGF have to say about this anyway? Oh: The American Islamic Leaders' "Fatwa" is Bogus. Great.
In fact, the fatwa is bogus. Nowhere does it condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism. It does not renounce nor even acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world. It does not renounce Jihad let alone admit that it has been used to justify Islamic terrorist acts. It does not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader. In short, it is a fake fatwa designed merely to deceive the American public into believing that these groups are moderate. In fact, officials of both organizations have been directly linked to and associated with Islamic terrorist groups and Islamic extremist organizations. One of them is an unindicted co-conspirator in a current terrorist case; another previous member was a financier to Al-Qaeda.
Where are the moderate Muslim groups? I keep hearing how Muslims are afraid of being branded as extremists, how not all Muslims are terrorists, how Muslims fear for their lives because of the actions of a few...but where are the moderate Muslim voices to stand up and say enough is enough? Kalroy found some of these voices, but like him I too am waiting for the Million Muslim March. We need more of this and we need it to be more publicized. I'm waiting for someone to stand up and say that we won't tolerate this:
That's an x-ray of one of the bombs from London. Whoever devised this bomb -- loaded with nails to inflict maximum damage on innocent Londoners -- is a monster. Remember the other day when I talked about umbrellas? Moderate Muslims are under an ugly umbrella with terrorists, and I for one would like to see them issue a real fatwa against these atrocities.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Dave at July 29, 2005 09:11 AM (c6xQA)
i don't think that 'fatwa' really means that much either.when you kill children AND think your going to go to heaven for it(banging head on desk)you really can't(or won't)reason with them.ever.
Posted by: tommy at July 29, 2005 12:15 PM (NMK3S)
Problem: Define "innocent civilian". Seems that your average Wahabbist thinks only they and their ilk are "innocent civilians"; all others are either heretics or infidels.
So when I see a "fatwa" that includes all persons of all faiths or no faith, including civilians, public servants, government officials, and military personnel--in other words, all the six + billion persons on this earth, no exceptions, will I believe any Muslim is truly denouncing terrorism. I await such a fatwa.
As I thought.
Posted by: Jim Shawley at July 29, 2005 01:42 PM (CnYsu)
Thus the major problem in dealing with the Muslims - they don't REALLY think that the jihad is wrong. Unlike the anti-abortion Catholics who were appalled by the lunatic who went around killing abortion doctors, these people think that it's alright to take a life in the name of religion.
Until that frame of mind can be changed - you won't see your Million Muslim March. *sigh*
Posted by: Teresa at July 29, 2005 09:25 PM (nAfYo)
That's my new protest sign.
Posted by: Kalroy at July 30, 2005 01:28 AM (9RG5y)
| Add Comment
July 13, 2005
Last night my husband and I had a meeting with a financial advisor, and the longer I sat through the meeting, the madder I got. You have a ROTH IRA, you get taxed in the end. You have a regular IRA, you get taxed now. You die with money and you have all these death taxes to pay.
Why, oh why, are people punished for saving their money wisely?
Forget "what would Jesus do"; I find myself often wondering What Would Our Founding Fathers Think? How would they react to knowing that, because my husband and I saved all his deployment money instead of spending it on big screen TVs and cars, we now have to fork over taxes to the government if we want to invest it?
It's our money, dang it.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
Look carefully at your money - every piece says 'The United States of America' on it. None of it says 'Sarah' on it. This shows that the money belongs to the government, and they just let you use some of it sometimes.
Posted by: Glenmore at July 13, 2005 08:37 AM (loaB2)
Funny how that works. The government says "Look, see what we have given you!" while having its hand out asking for a cut.
Posted by: Cerberus at July 13, 2005 12:21 PM (nzIoS)
Generally if your easily-valued assets have a total value under $1,000,000 you do not need to woestate tax return, so unless the Military pays you guys much better than it pays my brothers (one of whome is an officer), I don't think you need to worry too much.
I think estate taxes are actually a good thing since they keep 'old money' from growing too much and help to level the playing field so that merit and hard work rather than inheritance determine one's chance at realizing wealth. I think it has actually helped to keep the U.S. as a land of opportunity rather than devolving into a Corporate-Feual state.
Personally I stuck with ROTH IRAs mostly. Deferred tax works for me.
I expect that the Founding Fathers would be horrified at a lot of things in the U.S. today, including a permanent standing army (since your Hubby is a big part of Big Government your taxes are really just getting paid back to you in his salary), the corruption of federalism such that highway money and 'interstate commerce' allow the Feds to keep removing power from the states, the degree to which the executive branch has taken powers from the Legislative - Congress is no longer actually involved in the decision to declare war, etc.
I wondder which thing that would have them most disgusted. I think it's likely that it would be the war on drugs (there is good evidence that at least a few Fonding Fathers smoked weed), with the "Patriot" act coming in at a close second. I expect that the degree of corruption in the Congress - the many and various abuses there are myriad, I am especially disgusted that Congressmen get an automatic pay increase each year, unless they specifically vote against it.
Thinking about it more, I think that the direction that the awful state of our two party system at this point where only those who can afford to pay get to play would be the thing that horrified them most.
Posted by: VOT at July 13, 2005 10:51 PM (n5EIB)
Be on the lookout for:
The FairTax Book
by Neal Boortz, John Linder
List Price: $24.95
Price: $16.47 and eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details
You Save: $8.48 (34%)
Availability: This title will be released on August 2, 2005. You may order it now and we will ship it to you when it arrives. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Posted by: Pamela at July 14, 2005 04:44 PM (a7Bpk)
You aren't paying extra taxes on the money you saved instead of spending. If you put the money into a regular IRA you don't pay income taxes on it now. You will pay income tax on all of the money in the IRA, your contributions plus yor additional earnings, just once, when you withdraw the money. Better yet, with a Roth, you pay income tax on the contributions now and you don't pay tax on either those or the earnings later. So you pay income tax on each dollar of income once at most, and with a Roth you get some money tax free.
It is easy to say what Jesus would think, though. Bush calls Jesus his favorite political philosopher, but he ignores what is virtually the only thing Jesus ever said about politics... "Render unto Caesar what is Caesaer's." Pay your taxes.
Posted by: Pericles at July 15, 2005 08:13 AM (hHudX)
first of all, I hit this blog trying to find out if the 1ID unit that was in ARMOR geddon's blog was my old unit 2/2 from the 9ID.
Teh I saw the IRA crapination and had to throw in my two cents.
Read the RichDAD/PoorDAD books,there's a reason theyre bestsellers, its not hype.
Corporations make money, spend it, then pay taxes. Individuals make money, pay taxes,then spendit.
If youre so cheap that you won't pay brokerage or get real damned financial advisor that doesnt do what every mall rat democrat does then you'll pay a premium for squirreling away money. If it is not IN PLAY and making you money every month without you lifting afinger than the Gov'T will TAKE IT. And you can thank your loving socialist neighbors for them having the power.
Fuck taxes,tax is for IDIOTS. Jefferson and Adams both said it was every citizens DUTY to pay the least amount possible. Lookwaht the communists have done with Social Security!!MOney for OLD PEOPLE!! And they stole every fucking penny. You really think you should give these people more!!!? Don'tworry about the welfare state, they'll find their cash...
Invest in a business,get your home loan into an interest-only loan and invest the monthly savings. Pay business taxes only. Get a fucking accountant and a bookkeeper that OWNS SHIT!!! If youre stuck in the same traffic light as your brokers, youre a cheap ass idiot. Buy a nevad corporation,get a fucking clue and PAY someone to incorporate you . Otherwise you can go give your money to wall street and watch them steal every penny while you piss and moan for the government to change and save you,which will NEVER happen!!
Rich people are DIFFERENT!! You can'tbethe sameold dumbass and keep your money. It has to be in play or it will be stolen. Any idoit can beatup on an IRA,roth or not.
That shit is just for suckers...
Conform and perish.
Posted by: playertwo at July 25, 2005 02:22 PM (YSkil)
I could see the steam coming out of playertwo's ears there.
If tax money is used well, paying taxes is a boon. War, for instance, is never a good way to spend money.
"Do what rich people do". Rich people of course don't play by the rules. That's how they get rich. The rules are there for you to adhere to so that they can abuse them and get rich. It's an easy system. Look at how Carnegie, Rockefeller and Bill Gates got rich. There's a lot of hard work in there, sure, but there's also quite a bit of armtwisting as well.
It's not you who has to do as rich people do. It's the rich people who have to do as you do: pay their dues.
Playertwo does not seem to be a very socially engaged individual. That is his choice, of course. Who am I to judge.
The thing is though: why would the poor people believe in the law of the land if they only get the short end of the stick: no benefits or social security and if the country goes to war, they get to pay with their life for the mistakes of others.
Actually, here is where I follow playertwo completely: the soldiers from a poor background especially should go up to their commanders and say: "You want me to keep fighting? Sure. It's going to cost you though: 5 million bucks, pay up front. If I don't get my money, you get to stand guard yourself."
If there is no apparent reason or need to look out for the weaker elements in society, why should the weaker elements of society die to defend it? It's not my idea of a good time.
And I would wear flipflops. I'm sure it would piss of somebody.
Posted by: Jorge at July 26, 2005 08:23 AM (wb4gG)
| Add Comment
July 11, 2005
TOUR DE BLAH
Dear Tour de France,
Riders in the Tour should not be allowed to wear yellow. Sponsors with yellow jerseys make it extremely difficult to find the Maillot Jaune. Because other teams wear yellow, some people drive four and a half hours to see the peloton and can't even find Lance when it comes whizzing by. And that makes some people really irritated and sad.
We drove to Mulhouse yesterday for the finish line, and I was quite disappointed with my Tour experience. We waited for two hours at our spot at about 750 meters from the finish line, and then when Rasmussen finally arrived, this is the photo I got, thanks to the jackass standing next to me.
That's the winner of the stage, right behind the stupid balloon some guy waved in my face. I managed to get a good photo of Voigt and Moreau as they took second and third, but then the peloton came screaming by and I couldn't even find Lance, but I got to listen to my husband rave about how cool it was to see him. And then it was all over; only the people in the VIP section could see the end ceremonies, so we walked back to the car and that was that.
We discussed how the Americans would run a Tour de France: lots of big screens and food vendors and selling souvenirs and crap; a big stadium area for the end ceremony so everyone could enjoy it. As it was, we felt like no one really cared if spectators came or not. It was kinda weird, and rather disappointing.
I'm glad we went because it was something neat to say we've done, but I'm not sure it was worth nine hours in the car yesterday. I'd rather watch it on OLN.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.
It would be cool to see.
When you get back to the US, come down to Austin for the Ride For The Roses and you can see Lance up close- maybe ride with (near) him. Heck, volunteer and you might meet him.
Posted by: Jack Grey at July 11, 2005 06:07 PM (Jq8H8)
We took the train out to Pforzheim - and had a similar experience... but we got some pretty good pictures, and several blocked by the stupid man in front of us wearing an umbrella hat.
Posted by: Susan at July 14, 2005 02:31 PM (sJmbQ)
It's not the "Tour de Grok" honey, better luck next year!
Posted by: nerdstar at July 24, 2005 05:21 PM (/P9m9)
| Add Comment
July 08, 2005
I got an email from Mrs. Sims today. She belongs to a support group for OEF and OIF widows. Apparently most of their correspondence deals with anti-war messages they see and hear, things that would have made their husbands cringe. Mrs. Sims was especially appalled by a t-shirt she saw
and the accompanying message from its creator:
The background of this image is created by the names of about 1,700 U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq between March 21, 2003 and June 13, 2005. The names are in alphabetical order, with half the names on the front, and the other half on the back. The names are small, but easily read without magnification.
I think of this product as both a scathing indictment of George W. Bush and a memorial to the brave young soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq on behalf of their country. Perhaps someday they will get the memorial they deserve in Washington. Until then, this will have to suffice.
This t-shirt is not a monument to soldiers; if it were, the Bush slur would have been left off. You made this t-shirt for selfish reasons, as you admit later. Don't even try to sugarcoat it.
Bush is most famous for lying about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was this lie that arguably was most responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, not to mention thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
But Bush has lied in many other areas as well, from denying global warming to boasting about an improving economy that is actually on the skids. His lies are legion, and have spawned a cottage industry of books including The Lies of George W. Bush by David Corn and Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them by Al Franken.
Blah blah blah. If you want to make an anti-Bush shirt, do it. Just leave the fallen soldiers and their families out of it. Putting their names on your shirt implies that they support the message you're peddling for twenty bucks a pop...
I want to acknowledge that a number of relatives of fallen soldiers have contacted me to express their displeasure (or disgust) with the products I sell that bear the names of their loved ones.
Uh, gee, ya think? I know a few of those names, and I'm disgusted; can you guess how disgusted their wives and mothers and brothers are?
I admit that I did not contact the families of soldiers to get their permission. This would have been a monumental exercise, and would no doubt have proved impractical given the differing opinions among various family members.
It would've been too hard and most of them would've said no, so I just went ahead and did what I want regardless.
Of course, this product is not meant to be a statement on behalf of the families or the fallen soldiers. It is a statement on behalf of those who believe that this war was a tragic and terrible mistake -- and not an innocent mistake.
Ah, there's the selfish reason. You didn't make this t-shirt as a monument to the fallen, as you claimed in the beginning of your justification. You made it to prove your own point, using the names of people who don't agree with you and probably would like to punch you in the face if they ever met you. Hope you feel good about that.
I should also like to point out that many of the soldiers who died in Iraq believed that they were fighting for democracy. Democracy is built in large part on freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects these products, and all such similar examples of free speech.
Why does this remind me of the South Park commercial against Harbucks Coffee? ("It's time to stop large corporations. Prop Ten is about children. Vote yes on Prop Ten or else you hate children. You don't hate children, do you?") If you don't like this shirt, well then you must not believe in democracy and free speech and stuff. Oh, and you're disrespecting your husbands because, naturally, they would've fought to the death for my right to make this t-shirt. Isn't that how the saying goes?
Finally, I would like to express my sincere condolences to all of those who have lost loved ones in this war. No matter what they believed, or which side they were on, those who died will be missed.
Dan R. Frazier
In the end, as disgusted as I feel that Mrs. Sims knows her husband's name is on a shirt that makes her sick, I'm sure that the owners of these shirts will someday be ashamed. When Iraq is on her feet, as Germany and Japan are today, these shirts will have been burned or hidden. I'm confident that history will justify CPT Sims, not Dan Frazier.
Nonetheless, I send my condolences to all of the spouses, parents, and siblings of those whose names appear on this nauseating t-shirt. I know this shirt is not in our name.
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 849 words, total size 5 kb.
Sometimes there just isn't any justice, and I am ashamed at what fellow citizens do with a gift that has been handed to them. Others have suffered and paid the bill, so dickweeds like this can prattle on in unimaginable ignorance.
Posted by: Jason at July 08, 2005 10:37 AM (565iX)
If Dan Frazier was on fire,I wouldn't waste my spit on him to put the fire out. I'm Sorry Mrs.Sims that there are people in the great USA like Dan Frazier. I get angry and upset about these kind of things.
I want Mrs.Sims to know how grateful I am for her husbands service. I cherish him and all those that gave the ultimate sacrifice. Not a day will pass by for the rest of my life that I won't give thanks to God for them... I am forever grateful and humbled, and honored....
Posted by: 1AD Army Mom at July 08, 2005 06:51 PM (lZ8lX)
Using someone's name to sell a product while they're alive can get you sued. When the person is a dead soldier, unfortunately it's just disgusting.
Posted by: annika at July 08, 2005 08:47 PM (YmJn+)
The guy is a disgusting slug.
Posted by: Jim - PRS at July 08, 2005 10:15 PM (BjDAE)
Great piece. I feel like I need a shower just from reading about this.
Posted by: Tony B at July 09, 2005 02:05 PM (QBrm4)
I can't believe anyone in this country can be so ignorant. Don't these damn fools realize we are really at war? That we were atrtacked? Bty the way, there was a court case where the judge awarded judgement because the plaintiff 's lawyer provided suffcient evidence there was a justification for the war in Iraq. I have a verbatum copoy of the news article on my site. Only a small newspaper accounting ever appeared in the newspapers.
Posted by: devildpg6771 at July 10, 2005 09:33 AM (VT3Uv)
As a Vietnam vet with some experience I have to ask which do we need more? A constitutional amendment against flag burning or one outlawing the use of the names of Americas heros to undermine the very exsistance to the country the fought and died for?
Posted by: Doug R at July 10, 2005 09:49 AM (M7kiy)
It is too simplistic to simply lambast Mr Frazier.
First, President Bush deserves critcism of the decision to go to war in Iraq and the names on the shirt are the folks who have had to pay the price for a short sighted decision that does nothing to advance the cause of the US in teh global war on terror.
Second, the names are a matter of public record. He's well within his rights to use it, and from what you have printed he has not been in any way disrespectful of their memory.That's a basic American freedome that I and many others have served to protect.
The real issue comes down to the expectations that the administration painted for the war and sadly the critics have been proven right, the Bush team blew it. Now they have to deal with the consequences of very wrong headed decision.
9-11 and Iraq are two different events and the linkage of the 2 does no one any good. The wars are different conflicts , yet they exact the same price.
So IMHO this is no big deal. Don't buy the shirt.
Posted by: skippysan at July 10, 2005 10:18 AM (OI//T)
Think again, SkippySan. The names do not 'Belong' to anyone but the dead, and their families. It is unspeakably rude and downright degrading to tie the names of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to a cause that they would not have championed. I am not speaking for them, just saying that since none of us can speak for them, this is wrong.
If this idiot cared
for the well-being of the soldiers and their families, then all proceeds would be donated to charities which benefited the families. Gee, do you think that happened here? *snort* Yeah, didn't think so.
Posted by: Barb at July 10, 2005 05:41 PM (g9qHI)
'short sighted decision'
'does nothing to advance'
'critics have been proven right'
'Bush team blew it'
'very wrong headed decision'
'does no one any good'
You seem pretty sure of yourself, Skippy. i think that's sad.
Posted by: annika at July 11, 2005 03:02 AM (1jbos)
Yes, that right Skippysan they are within their 'legal' rights.
But haven't you (or they?) ever heard of RESPECT!?
As far as your other comments go. Your ignorance isn't worth my time to bother responding.
Posted by: Charles at July 12, 2005 12:14 PM (u8N2O)
When i saw this post i thought "there is no way that someone can be that sick" So i decided to ignore it. Then i saw a couple other posts about it and so i went and checked it out and the answer is "yes, someone can be that sick." What pisses me off the most is that Gavin J. Colburn, who saved my sister and died in the process, his name is on there. Gavin fought and died doing something he believed in. I am so pissed that someone would use his name on a damn t-shirt that makes it look like Gavin died for nothing. God that pisses me off. If anyone buys any of this fucking t-shirts that is just wrong. I hope that the person who made these makes absolutley no money off of them. Why would you put a dead person's name on something that goes against everything that they fought for. Man, i am just sooooooooooooooo pissed off by this. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Posted by: April Shah at July 19, 2005 11:07 AM (Gj9e6)
| Add Comment
July 02, 2005
Look at all the abuse going on at Gitmo
! Abuse against the soldiers, that is. And look at the punishments solders get for fighting back against the prisoners: demotion, garnished wages, extra duty, etc. What a gulag...
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
I want prisoners punished for any act against a guard, and I want any commander who punishes a guard for physically responding to a prisoner attack removed from authority over troops. The guards are not butlers. The prisoners are not guests. The commander is not an innkeeper.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at July 04, 2005 03:45 PM (xX0fS)
Posted by: Mr. Silly at July 05, 2005 03:02 AM (y1TbU)
| Add Comment
July 01, 2005
Here's a Reuters article that really chaps my hide, via LGF
WorldÂ’s oldest person celebrates 115th birthday
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch woman who swears by a daily helping of herring for a healthy life celebrated her 115th birthday on Wednesday as the oldest living person on record.
Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee.
WHAT??? I supposed they're trying to give us some sort of frame of reference for just how old she is, but let's look at what else happened in 1890, events Reuters skipped in order to use Wounded Knee:
Oscar Wilde publishes The Picture of Dorian Gray
Otto von Bismarck dismissed
Idaho is admitted as the 43rd state
Sequoia National Park and Yosemite National Park established
US stops minting $1 & $3 gold coin & 3Ã‚Â¢ piece
Daughters of the American Revolution founded
Ellis Island opens as a US immigration depot
And the list goes on. Heck, Reuters could've said that this woman was born the year before basketball was invented! All of these give us a frame of reference as well; why Wounded Knee?
Posted by: Sarah at
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.
Quibble: Is Reuters based in America? I thought it was from the UK...
Posted by: Patrick Chester at July 01, 2005 06:25 AM (74cXW)
You're right...I fouled that one up.
Posted by: Sarah at July 01, 2005 07:29 AM (owUK9)
Or even: The year the Sioux Indians lost the Battle of Wounded Knee.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at July 01, 2005 12:26 PM (RNs/2)
1890 Dutch continue illegal enslavement of Indonesia.
Posted by: Greg Schreiber at July 01, 2005 12:55 PM (DvSQS)
SARAH. Please! It is written in the great
secret code book given to every European
upon their 18th birthday:
(ahem) Thou shalt not pass up any opportunity
to make point out the flaws and folibles of
America and Americans. Even when it is neither
germain nor relevant to the topic at hand.
We have yet to break the spirit of the United
States,but that is the mission. In spite of
their goodness,decency and incredible generosity,
they must not be allowed to think that they are
'all that and a bag of chippes' .
Posted by: Mary at July 01, 2005 04:33 PM (YwdKL)
Amazing isn't it... not only is she not Sioux, she's not Native American, or even plain old American!!! Was NOTHING happening in the Netherlands the year she was born?
It boggles the mind how much Reuters hates America!
Posted by: Teresa at July 01, 2005 06:35 PM (nAfYo)
1890 - The year the ten-year-old Wilhelmina became Queen of the Netherlands, which she remained until 1948. Also the year Luxembourg seceded from the Netherlands.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at July 04, 2005 03:49 AM (RbYVY)
My God! That's more interesting and important
to them than Wounded Knee! Put that into
perspective- this woman was born when Whilhelmina
ascended the throne and BENJAMIN HARRISON was the
Posted by: Mary at July 05, 2005 06:29 PM (YwdKL)
| Add Comment
77kb generated in CPU 0.0159, elapsed 0.0785 seconds.
52 queries taking 0.0671 seconds, 212 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.